Comments by Kevin Pacey
![A game information page](/index/ms.gif)
![A game information page](/index/ms.gif)
![A game information page](/index/link.gif)
Hi Ben I'm afraid I have no idea where wikipedia might have obtained their suggested rules from.
![A game information page](/index/ms.gif)
Regarding the name "Unicorn", I originally preferred to use it in my 4D variant (rather than "Nun", or any other name), until I saw the wiki link on fairy chess pieces, which didn't appear to me to include the way I was using "Unicorn". Apparently I looked in haste, because it now appears to me that it does. I'll go back and edit my submission to change the name "Nun" to "Unicorn". Back in the 1980s when I came up with the idea of a 4x4x4x4 4D chess variant, in a different city than I am now, I had borrowed a library book on fairy chess which I recall only a very small number of things about (not including the title or the author's name). One thing the book showed was a diagram for a 5x5x5x5 4D chess variant, with the 4D fairy piece type Balloon included. As an aside, I at once preferred a 4x4x4x4 board concept, to have an equal number of light and dark squares, but later I saw that 5x5x5x5 at least often allows a knight more legal moves depending on location. The book also mentioned the "Unicorn" as a 3D piece. It likely matched wikipedia's description of its movements. If so, I'd note that nowadays this use of "Unicorn" doesn't quite make so much sense to me, however, since the mythical beast is virtually a horse, and it thus seems desirable to me that any such named piece would have some knight-like property to it (regardless, in the 1980s, not thinking of this, I wanted to use the name "Unicorn" for a piece, since it's charming for a name). In spite of this, I'll drop the use of "Nun", as mentioned.
I've edited a couple of my comments & original submission for 4*Chess, in case anyone hasn't noticed.
You are right Ben that the Black 4*Chess K is not mated (i.e. can escape) in the diagram I made of White having two 4*Chess Unicorns (& his 4*Chess K) vs. a lone Black 4*Chess K (it seems there can be no similar position constructed where there is a mate on the board with this material balance). I'll go back and delete the diagram in question from my submission.
Sorry I already deleted the diagram in question, as my sole idea was to try to show a 'basic' mate with just two 4*Chess Unicorns, which unfortunately now seems an impossible task.
Thought I'd mention that 4*Chess got its rules for 4*Chess Pawn movements (& its last rank promotion rule applying only to the appropriate corner mini-board) partly because of the starting position for it, which was designed to allow any square in 4*Chess to be reached by exactly one of the eight 4*Chess Balloons (aka Dirigibles) one starts a game with. For that to happen, essentially all mini-boards of a single quadrant of four mini-boards had to have two opposite coloured 4*Chess Balloons on the same rank of each mini-board involved, as is the case for both sides in the setup position. That meant that for both sides some pawns were going to be closer to promoting from the setup position than others, even if I chose to allow promotions to occur on the last rank of all 4 mini-boards that were on a player's last row of mini-boards. On top of that, from the start I wished promotions only to occur in a corner quadrant where the enemy 4*Chess King starts the game, and so I was happy enough to make that choice instead. For anyone who missed it, I made edits to my previous comment.
![A game information page](/index/ms.gif)
![A game information page](/index/ms.gif)
By editing, I've added descriptions of the ideas of Crazyhouse & Bughouse versions of 4*Chess (namely 4*Crazyhouse & 4*Bughouse) to the 'Notes' section of my submission above.
![A game information page](/index/ms.gif)
By editing, I've added descriptions of the ideas of Crazyhouse & Bughouse versions of Sac Chess (namely Sac Chess Crazyhouse & Sac Chess Bughouse) to the 'Notes' section of my submission above.
![A game information page](/index/game.gif)
Back in the 1980's, with two other friends I played many games of what I believe was a Canadian version of Kriegspiel that was described in the Chess Federation of Canada's printed magazine that was still being published then. I recall that the rules were as described above, except as follows:
1) When something was captured, the referee announced 'Pawn captured on' or else 'Piece captured on' (but without specifying the piece type) before naming the square the capture occured on;
2) When a pawn could capture something on a given square, the referee would announce 'Pawn capture available on' before naming the square the capture was available on.
After one friend was no longer in town, I put together a BASIC computer program for this version of Kriegspiel that used less than 16K. My remaining friend and I sat in seperate areas, each with our own chess set, while the BASIC program I wrote kept track of the position, in memory, as though it was the referee. My friend or I would take turns sitting at the terminal, depending on whose move it was, trying a move to see if it was legal until the side to move found a legal move. If the computer said that a move was illegal, the person whose turn it was could decide to return to his physical board area and then ponder on what move to try next.
Because of the effect of the rules regarding incomplete information, or regarding information at times revealed by [pawn capture/king/various] move tries or checks, my tentative estimates for the piece values of this variant are quite different than for standard chess: P=1; N=2.5; B=2.5; R=4; Q=7.5 and the fighting value of K=3 (though naturally it cannot be traded).
![A game information page](/index/game.gif)
One thing I like about Glinski's game in comparison to the present game is that there is quite a bit less distance on a given file (in terms of hexes) between pawns (especially for edge-ish ones) in Glinski's start position than is the case for the present game. Another thing I like about Glinski's game is that a pawn capture moves the pawn by just one hex 'forward' (in a sense) on the file the pawn finishes its move on, like in chess in that sense. Similar to how a pawn only advances one hex forward on a file when making a non-capturing move in Glinski's game (or the present one, for that matter).
A pawn capture in the present game can advance a pawn by as much as two hexes towards promotion, which doesn't happen in chess - but nor can a diagonal pawn capture fail to advance a pawn towards promotion at all, as often happens with Glinski's game (which is one thing I like about the present game's rules). That is, in both games pawn captures away from more central files are 'rewarded' in terms of being closer to a promotion hex to some degree. Capturing towards a more central file is at least 'rewarded' (to any extent) in the present game (by putting a pawn one hex closer to promoting), I would note. The present game also answers my wish for having similar pawn chains to like in chess, which Glinski's game fails to allow.
Decades ago I saw values given for the pieces in Glinski's that would seem to apply to McCooey's too: P=1; B=3; N=4; R=5; Q=9. I'd add that I estimate the fighting value of K=4 approximately (though naturally it cannot be traded).
[edit: Note that except for a pawn making an initial 2-step move, in McCooey's game it seems it would often take at least 2 moves to make a pawn chain consisting of only just 2 pawns, perhaps more often than is the case in chess.] However, either hexagonal game does not seem to really allow lengthy periods of very locked up ('closed') positions (due to virtually boardwide pawn chains), as can happen in chess, anyway, due to the board's roomy geometry and ratio of pawns & pieces to hexes for both hexagonal games in question. My guess is that lovers of strategic maneuvering might want to look at another sort of variant altogether for that. So far the pros & cons I've mentioned for Glinski's game & the present one tend to balance themselves out in my mind, although I've only played Glinski's game (occasionally), and that was decades ago before my one opponent (my brother) stopped playing. Glinski's game might have a considerably larger over-the board following worldwide, for all I know, though, which could count for something, if only for its having a leg up on the present game. Somehow I received a tube set for Glinski's game a long time ago, but finally discarded it some years ago due to lack of over-the-board opponents locally. In games with my brother, endgames often arose where I'd win with extra pawn(s) - though I'd let him take back gross mistakes earlier in the games since I had more skill at chess-like games than he did. {P.S.: After playing a number of games with an expert in this (McCooey) variant, I've found the game is rather tactical and it's easy to get creamed right from the start! Both sides have a number of tactical weaknesses in the setup, and it seems the number of playable openings may be somewhat limited, at least for the early part of the game. especially from Black's perspective.}
Hi Carlos Your variant is interesting, especially in that there is an extra queen per side, which is an extra sweetener for a hexagonal game, as far as tactical players would be concerned, I'd think. It's nice any pawn can make an initial double step without instantly depriving the opponent's pawn on the same file of an initial double step with such a move. I don't know if castling would often be especially beneficial in such a hexagonal variant (presumably it's not always a poor idea), but at least that rule emulates the one in chess, if that's a positive thing (it might be in the eyes of at least some chess players). Hypothetically, what might make for a more (at times) strategic-maneuvering hexagonal variant than those I've looked at would be using McCooey's pawn capture rules (as your variant does), and the sort of almost boardwide setup for pawns as in either Glinski's variant or yours, except to try to find a way to add 2 extra pawns per side to the 2 remaining pawnless files in the start position (i.e. on the 'a' and 'k' files, presumably on each side's rearmost hexes on those files). Otherwise, I would suppose those 2 extra pawnless outer files might nearly always eventually make for a considerably less blocked (or duller) struggle in the middlegame or opening than can arise at times (and go on for many, many moves) in chess middlegames or openings, if only because major pieces (particularly rooks) might tend to be traded on the open files in such hexagonal variants, at least in games between evenly matched players. Adding 2 extra outside file pawns would seem a more natural modification with your variant than Glinski's. Doing so for either game might result in a start position that's not so pretty in either case, however. That's especially since the extra outside file pawns could well be unprotected to start with. There would not be this drawback if Glinski's pawn capture rules were used instead, but then there would be no blocked pawn chains possible as in chess, as previously mentioned, and I'd think that wouldn't be helpful for stategic manuevering. Nevertheless, note that in such tri-coloured hexagonal variants, diagonal-moving pieces can get through a mutual pawn chain situation, if they can move on the third colour the mutual chain situation does not affect, something that does not happen in chess. Still hypothetically, in the case of your variant's start position, having all of each side's rearmost pawns (i.e. those on red hexes in your diagram) 1 hex forward on their respective files would allow the rooks to guard such additional 'a' and 'k' pawns, satisfying my desire of having them protected at the start, and such a start position might not be so ugly. I need to note that, in this hypothetical setup, even though I think I might not mind allowing an initial double-step by any pawn, I suppose there would be pros & cons whatever the initial pawn step rule(s) might be. I kind of like having the bishops start on 3 different colour hexes, as in Glinski's or McCooey's variants, but perhaps one can't always have everything one wishes for. If I get very keen on the idea of hexagonal variant(s) again, I may want to think about how to arrange that for the 3 bishops, which could include my adding in some extra (perhaps even fairy) chess pieces to help fill in the resulting empty hexes in each player's camp in the tentative hypothetical start position. This could also help make for a more strategic-manuevering game at times, with more existing pieces in search of thus more scarce good/adequate hexes in the opening/middlegame - in fact there would then be less than 50% of the cells empty (39/91) at the start, less than in chess. Alternatively, I might go back to using just 1 queen to make more room/symmetry (if necessary) for 3 different coloured bishops, if I still prefer having the latter. Still, I haven't by any means researched all known hexagonal variants, and someone may have already thought of all these considerations & more.
People are welcome to post their ideas for what might make for chess variants that would make it hard for computer engines to beat reasonably skilled humans (better yet would be a way for this website to indicate whether a particular chess variant promises to be computer resistant). I see the game of Go as promising for this purpose, except unfortunately IMHO it lacks kings that can be checkmated, for the thrill of the chase that helps make many chesslike games attractive. If a chess variant becomes popular enough that it attracts serious attention from skilled engine programmers, and they fail to beat fairly skilled humans with their machines for at least decades, it could be game on as far as that chess variant becoming the next chess, aka the new version of standard chess. Chess may be well overdue for some serious changes to its basic rules, in any number of conceivable ways.
This year top human Arimaa players (including 2 world champs) were beaten by a computer program, seemingly ending the hopes of that game of remaining even remotely computer resistant. That is, unless humans come up with fresh strategies for the game, but I suppose it is no longer as easy to do that since Arimaa is not such a novel game anymore. Based on what I've seen on the web, Arimaa had many attributes that at least one of its champions thought might make it computer resistant. IMHO it lacked being played on a board significantly larger than 8x8, which might have helped since in the case of Go, so far it seems clearly the larger the board size, the better. In Go, I would note that the number of legal moves is not excessively large, even in the opening phase. Go has the advantage over chess that there is no king or more than one type of piece, making it tougher for a computer to evaluate a given position. I've also read that a good Go player can at times easily assess how important a single stone might be for 100 ply ahead, by contrast. This helps with both evaluation and pruning any search tree of moves not worth looking at very deeply. My own guess is that for chesslike games board size could be important, and having a larger number of moves available on average than in chess could help too. Having Shogi-like drops would help greatly increase the average number of moves, and such can be visualized more easily in a way IMHO than some complex long range [fairy]chess piece movements. A problem with drops is that computers can visualize checkmating sequences of moves better than humans, but this problem would vanish if a player can drop a piece only on his own half of the board, assuming a variant that is similar to Shogi. Shogi programs at the moment are close to top human skill level afaik, but a larger board variant and a suitably modified drop rule (if necessary) might make for one type of variant that may be computer resistant for some years to come, I would guess. All this assumes that alpha beta or some sort of tree searching with modern computers would be used, but there could be fresh danger for humans when vs. engines if neural net programming becomes sufficently advanced, or practical quantum computers become available, especially to the general public. A while ago I saw a variant on this website that was a cross between chess and Go, in that some sort of checkmate was possible, and there were example games that lasted a reasonably short number of moves, like for standard chess. If someone can find it (whether or not before me), perhaps it can be assessed as to whether it might possibly be just one chesslike variant that is computer resistant. Meanwhile, I had some faint hope that some of my invented variants (or anyone else's) might prove computer resistant, if any ever become popular enough to attract the attention of serious programmers. All my invented variants to date are now listed on this website fwiw. edit: The game I'm thinking of is Gess, where in fact no checkmate ever occurs. Thus, not what I had in mind to be a chesslike game, but it still looks interesting otherwise: http://www.chessvariants.com/crossover.dir/gess.html
As a teen I tried playing the odd (e.g. WWII-based) Avalon-Hill board-wargame with my brother, though I found it hard to keep track of all the rules, board hexes and pieces. Based on looking at the link given, The Battle of Macysburg doesn't appear quite as highly complex by comparison, based on my vague memories of playing board-wargames in the 1970s, which may be a plus for many wargamers that could take it up. Even in the 1970s I was a serious chess player, and had always liked that the rules of chess were not overly complicated. That's besides liking the beauty of a chess set as a child. Fwiw, I fairly recently came up with 12 criteria I would like personally for chess variants or other board games of skill; being a chess player, my criteria were designed to favour chess-like games, and hopefully ones that could still prove popular. I also hope one day for a chess variant to replace chess as the new standard version of it, hopefully for at least many decades, if not centuries, as strong computer engines may diminish strongly skilled human players in the eyes of at least some of the public, and also such engines make cheating more possible than before. To me personally, the minimum criteria to make for a chess variant would be my final criteria in the list further below, namely: "12. Kings that can be checkmated are included." For me, this could include games that have one (or more) "king" per side, or games where there are other ways to win besides administering a final checkmate. This would certainly exclude Arimaa, or Go (which unlike Arimaa is not listed on the present chess variant website afaik); I've play the odd game of Go, but not yet any games of Arimaa. Here are the 12 criteria for chess variants or other board games of skill that I mentioned; I would note that as of nowadays satisfying all 12 of them (including computer resistance) may prove to be impossible in the long run, however: 1. Arguably resistant to computer playing engines (ideally even against human players that aren't close to being the world's best); 2. Any endgame stage not in significant danger of being compromised e.g. due to tablebases (adjournments feasible if desired); 3. Significant popularity in North America and elsewhere (ideally played in clubs and cash prize tournaments); 4. Extensively tested (ideally for centuries); 5. Rules arguably not way too complex or simple; 6. Has significant literature and cultural history (ideally no licensing or copyright requirements on the game itself); 7. Fixed start position, ideally nice & not same as chess if variant (or at least empty board, before 1st player moves); 8. Opening phase not in danger of being arguably played out any time soon; 9. Two player game (normally, at least); 10. Not way too many/few pieces or board squares/cells/points, and played on one board; 11. Pieces look & move nicely & board can be on coffeetable (ideally fixed start position not same as chess if variant); 12. Kings that can be checkmated are included. Below is a link to one variant I invented that might be somewhat computer resistant, and yet still satisfy all 12 criteria I gave to at least some degree. What I imagined are its main weaknesses include that an average game may take over 200 ply if reasonably well played (though an average Go game takes about 150 ply, and Go claims to be a war rather than a battle, unlike chess), and once a lot of pieces might have been exchanged then the resulting position might not be very computer resistant (though it may not matter if one side already stands better or is clearly drawing the game): http://www.chessvariants.com/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSsacchess
Here's another chess variant that I invented that does not resort to using Shogi-like drops, and which may also be computer-resistant to some degree; however I have even more doubt than in the case of Sac Chess that this variant will ever become popular: http://www.chessvariants.com/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MS4chessfourdime Then there could be Crazyhouse (or even Bughouse) versions of the following variant of mine (which is similar to Grand Chess); such a version with drops might prove computer resistant to some degree (drops might be limited to one's own half of the board if necessary, to curtail an engine's ability to forsee mating sequences with drops, if the game would then still prove playable). Such a variant might even have a fair chance of becoming popular someday (pawns could be prohibited from promoting somehow, e.g. like in Australian pawn rules Standard Bughouse, if that helps by removing the need for another set in over-the-board games): http://www.chessvariants.com/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSchess1010
To editors, FYI I'm having troubles editing my posts at times, until I make a fresh post. Then I'm allowed to edit my posts for a little while, only, it seems. Otherwise, when I've attempted to edit a post of mine what's been happening is that I'm told I must sign in, even though it seems that I already am (in fact, I don't think the 'edit' option for my posts would show if I were not signed in). Anyone else having this problem?
I didn't mind having mobility a little impaired for a while in Sac Chess, in terms of available legal move options from the starting position. Humans might even be able know better than engines for the forseeable future which pieces to develop faster than much of the rest of the pieces, leaving such as 'reserves' for a long time into the game. In any case, the average number of legal moves per turn in a game would still significantly reduce the number of ply ahead a machine could look, I figured. Even a modern off-the-shelf chess engine that prunes moves each turn highly selectively (say like the engine Houdini) sees 40 ply ahead on average, I seem to recall. In that case, I've estimated that for Sac Chess such an engine might see only about 30 ply ahead, and maybe a further 5 ply less than that if any practical memory use requirements (due to using a larger 10x10 board) also limit the search depth. If my guesswork was not that far off, that could make a strong Sac Chess engine only strong international master level strength at best (e.g. 2450 FIDE). By contrast my guesswork for Grand Chess puts a strong engine at that at about 2750 FIDE (all this is assuming Houdini-like prowess of such engines, in terms of evaluating positions). Of course, something may be wrong with the sort of calculations I made. Even so, I'd be curious to know how strong an engine might be at Capablanca Chess (8x10 board variant) - if it's weaker than a strong human than I may have grossly overestimated how good a Grand Chess engine might be, for example. In the case of Seirawan Chess, adding two more pieces per side in the opening didn't seem to help humans when vs. strong engines, I gather, but that game is played on the smaller 8x8 board still. I'm not sure if having two moves per turn could one day make for a popular enough variant. As an analogy, I long ago played some sort of card game where a player could under certain conditions pick up another card from the deck after making a play, thus continuing their turn, and that process could even repeat itself indefinitely. I played that card game with older people (for the first time), introducing them to it, and they never seemed to desire to try it again. It seems there is a strong cultural habit/desire of one person taking one turn at a time, and that's it, at least for card games. To be fair, I liked playing Progressive Chess with a friend who was willing, long ago too.
I recall I've read that the best human International Checkers (10x10 variant) still beat a computer program in a recent year. That game has a larger board size than Arimaa, standard chess or checkers, and like Arimaa the moves are easier to visualize for humans than say for standard chess. The issue of board size is one possible computer-resistance factor Juhnke's Chessbase article didn't go into. However, serious programmers may have not devoted much attention to International Checkers since it isn't as popular as standard chess or Arimaa (plus both of those had cash incentives for programmers to succeed at beating humans). My own guess at what factors could make for computer resistant games includes 1) larger board size (than say 8x8) which I suppose generally favours humans; 2) ease of game piece movements for humans to visualize (though perhaps this is much overrated, e.g. as was ultimately the case with Arimaa); 3) difficulty for a computer to evaluate a given position in any search (I think computers will always outdo humans at this in chesslike games), and 4) difficulty for a computer to prune its search of unpromising moves adequately enough to search deep enough to be effective against a skilled human (a huge branching factor [of legal moves per turn on average] alone may not be necessary, nor suffice - as shown for Arimaa, as a programmer may find tricks to prune a huge number of branches at each turn). In spite of all the above, I feel that any game or chess variant might only prove computer resistant for so long before future hardware/sofware developments help computers end up on top. Does that make looking for computer resistance futile? Well, perhaps new computer resistant games/variants can be invented as necessary, to buy humans some time - hopefully for many decades, if not for centuries. Standard chess itself went through various rule changes over centuries, after all. I see computer resistance as perhaps a worthy goal, as I alluded to earlier, that is to restore some lost glory for highly skilled humans who play chess of some sort (not to mention lost glory for humanity in general), in the eyes of the public, and to also reduce the possibility of computer assisted cheating as much as possible (though modern portable communication devices still have increased the potential for human assisted cheating).
![A play-by-email page](/index/pbm.gif)
Thanks for putting together a Game Courier version of Sac Chess, Carlos. I didn't guess a variant of mine would be on Game Courier so soon (if ever). I'm still new to the Chess Variants Page, and I've been shy about trying out the Game Courier. I tried email chess games years ago and found it a bit taxing (computer engine assistance and use of books were allowed, too, not such a problem for a lot of chess variants I suppose). I also tried reading some of the lengthy documentation for Game Courier a while ago, and though it looks daunting I can probably get a handle on the most essential parts to know as far as playing any game by email, when I feel like trying it out (by the New Year, if not sooner). I'll keep you in mind as an opponent at Sac Chess or any Hexagonal variant(s) if you still wish. Earlier today I saw a diagram for the Sac Chess starting position on Game Courier invitations (I happened to check for any Sac Chess games being played there), and it looked much nicer than my attempt at a diagram in my submission for Sac Chess on the Chess Variants Page. Thanks again. Kevin
I suspect what did in Arimaa in 2015 as far as humans vs. computers was that besides that a computer could be programmed for tactics no human could normally see (e.g. bringing a rabbit to the final rank when already somewhat close to it, securing instant victory, as done within even a small number of ply), programming effective heuristics to take advantage of by now well-known advice (to Arimaa players) on strategies used by humans must have finally been achieved. In Go I understand there are many rules of thumb, or heuristics, about what constitutes best play in local (e.g. corner) situations, at least in the opening phase of the game. Though I am a duffer at Go (as opposed to chess, at least some might say), I understand that for tactical considerations 'liberties' is a vital concept (i.e. how many empty points are next to the whole perimeter of a group of stones). That would be something to strive to optimize. Then for Go strategy there are also at least a handful of really grand concepts that are more difficult to program for computers, I would imagine; in short, a skilled human can at times see the strong influence exerted on territory and group(s) of stones by one or more stones for a long time to come. Also, good Go players can get a rough count during the middlegame phase of how much territory each player can expect to end up with, if neither side sooner or later tries to initiate a risky tactical melee, it seems. For those who may think that Go is rather dull, I wondered that too. In talking to a friend who spent some time in Japan and became somewhat skilled at Go (and Shogi), he told me that these days the top country at Go is South Korea. Apparently there are at least two fundamental styles at Go, similar to in standard chess. In Go one can play to win quietly by mostly winning on territory (like strategically played chess) or one can play to kill one or more large groups of stones, taking many prisoners and territory if successful, and likely inducing the opponent to resign earlier than near the endgame phase (like tactical attacking chess). The South Koreans apparently all like to play in such an aggressive attacking style. Speaking of strategy, I can mention that for Sac Chess there could still be weak pawns that appear, as well as players being left with just one bishop at some stage (and perhaps then weak on squares of the opposite colour), so there are at least these elements of strategy that may carry over from standard chess to some degree. I would also note that in Sac Chess if a player would avoid making an early big mistake, his king may be well defended by all the extra pieces near it, even if they are doing little else for a long time to come. This is one important difference that there may be between Sac Chess and (say) Alekhine Chess, even though the latter may also apparently have a little too much piece firepower for some folks to like too.
Fwiw, I once looked at a review for the chess program Houdini (some version), and the inventor had succeeded in making it very selective as far as choosing (i.e. pruning for) promising candidate moves to look at more deeply at a given level. About 5 of the legal moves per turn; the average is thought to be 35 for chess. With this success, such an engine can see 40 ply ahead in lots of important cases of move sequences. Some pruning done apparently can risk throwing out some vital sequences once in a while, but it seems the risk is low enough as to be worth it for such chess engine programmers. I was wondering if the above might mean that a program seeing 5/35 deeper could see a ratio of 1/7 deeper typically for a chess variant, even if it had significantly more than 35 legal moves available to a side on average. Note that 5/35 is also not far from (sq. root (35))/35 as a ratio, which could favour humans less than a flat 1/7 ratio. For example the approx. (i.e. truncated) value of 100/7 moves examined more deeply would be more than 10 moves (out of 100) examined more deeply. Least favourable of all to humans would be if an engine could always prune down to exactly 5 continuations to look at more deeply, no matter how many legal moves per turn on average there are in a given chess variant. So it may be vital what Houdini pruning to 5/35 means exactly when extrapolating to engines for chess variants. Sorry if my terminology is not up to snuff. Also fwiw, as a veteran chess master (Canadian), I have some feeling for the concern that strong chess engines have caused to players, tournament directors and organizers over the years, especially due to possible computer-assisted cheating. Also, on a Canadian chess message board some years ago, one poster noted that upon hearing chess engines were stronger than people, some non-chess players he had met immediately lowered their opinion of chess and chessplayers.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.